CAP Court Apple V FBI Opening Statement and Closing Statement

Opening

Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury and honorable Judge Mayo. I am before
you here today to represent the defendant, Apple Inc. My defendant has been brought to court for
refusing to compromise its products security to gain possible evidence on the iPhone 5C owned
by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooting gunmen. That right there is only an
assumption that there could be information regarding the shooting in the gunmans iPhone.
Based on this assumption, the FBI has asked for Apple to create an entirely new security system
to obtain access to this phone. If there is a hole in the security then this will mean it is possible
for the FBI to gain access to personal information of those who own iPhones, no matter how
private. The real question for this case is, do you want FBI dudes to see your nudes? Because this
is about public privacy and apples rights.
Apple is an extensive American company. How many of you have iPhones? In fact,
Apple sold about 74.5 million iphones in the first quarter of 2015. It is likely that some of you
enjoy or have enjoyed using an iPhone. It is also likely that you have stored some sort of private
information on said device. When I tell you, ladies and gentleman of the jury, that the FBI is
asking Apple to create a loophole in the encryption that protects your private information so that
they have access to the phones as a whole, I want you to consider whether or not you want the
FBI all over your personal records. How did you feel when you heard that the NSA was watching
you? Do you want an additional government agency to be observing your private activities?
Because that could happen. Ask yourself, is this even constitutional? No, it is not. The fourth
amendment assures the privacy and personal safety of the public. How can someone hope to
have privacy when the FBI has access to your phone. This is a slippery slope. Once the FBI has a
backdoor in Apple it won't stop there. They will move to install backdoors on all major phone
services making nothing secure. This is a recipe for disaster.
The FBI wants to get into one phone and has gone through a lot of trouble to get into that
one phone. This case is not just about this phone. The FBI wants apple to create an entirely new
operating system, which is unreasonably burdensome, to weaken the security that protects
customer data. There is no proof that any terrorist information is even held on the phone.
Code is speech. The code that is written to create the new software responsible for the
backdoor is a form of speech. People can communicate through code making it no different than
any other form of speech which includes but is not limited to mathematical formulae and musical
scores. And asking Apple to write software that they do not agree with would in turn be a
violation of the First Amendment. Ask yourself, is code a can opener or a recipe? Is it a gadget or
medium for speech or is it a set of instructions that allows for speech? Code is a set of
instructions for a computer, which may allow people to communicate with others, thus making it
a recipe.. Recipes are protected by the First Amendment, and thus code is protected speech. Code
is not a tool, its a set of instructions.
As you are here for this case, you will hear from Lisa Olle, Apples global law
enforcement manager, Timothy Cook, the Apple CEO, Christopher Soghoian, the principal
technologist for the ACLU, Erik Neuenschwander, Apples chief product security and privacy
manager, Dan Boneh, a research in cryptography and computer security and professor of

computer science and electrical engineering at Stanford University, and Erwin Chemerinsky, a
professor of law at the University of California.
Do you want the FBI to watch you? Do you not want privacy on your phone? Do you
want the First and Fourth amendment to be violated? Do you want your nudes in jeopardy? Of
course not. This court case is the only thing preventing the FBI from doing so. It is up to you to
determine how far you are willing to let them violate your privacy. It is up to you to ensure the
publics privacy and its up to you to protect Apples rights.
Closing

My fellow American citizens, it is my pleasure to stand before you here today to

represent my defendant, Apple Inc.. However, I am not just here to represent my defendant I am
here to represent Americas citizens. We, as the people of the United States, have the right to a
reasonable expectation of privacy as implied in the 4th amendment, and free speech. As it
pertains to the US, allowing the FBI access to 94 million iPhones, is giving the government the
opportunity to breach nearly 30% of our population's privacy. Now, you may ask, Well 70% of
our population is not affected so what is the matter? Well who is not to say that soon the FBI
will be asking for other companies to create systems that could potentially allow the FBI access
to 100% of Americans cellular devices? Ruling in support of the plaintiff would set a legal
precedent that gives the government the courage to overstep the boundaries of privacy and
companies 1st Amendment rights, because forcing Apple to give up codes needed to fulfill the
warrants requirements is a violation of the 1st Amendment for code is speech.
Take for example, the analogy of a can opener vs. a recipe that Attorney Moglen
explained. Is code a gadget or a medium for expression? As Mr. Boneh, an expert witness,
explained here today, Since programming involves defining a procedure that an execution
environment should follow- it is a recipe. Exhibit ___ displayed that code in fact can be
translated to speech. So therefore, code is a recipe. Code is a set of directions that is used for
communication and human expression. Therefore, code is speech.
Do you believe that the government should be permitted to violate Apples right to free
speech? More importantly, do you, respectable members of the jury, want to set a legal precedent
that is a recipe for disaster? A recipe that would encourage the government to violate Americans
1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights. A recipe that would set off a slippery slope of
creating programs that would allow the FBI access to Americans personal cellular devices.
Apples refusal to comply with the courts warrant was to protect its consumers, but most
importantly to protect the rights of you and other fellow American citizens.
Now, the plaintiff has countlessly argued that the FBI must unlock the iPhone to block
terrorism. However, how can you be certain that this will stop terrorism? Has the plaintiff
provided numbers on how many terrorists own iPhones or how many cases have occurred where

a terrorist has owned an iPhone? In short, can you be certain that the number of terrorists owning
an iPhone is high so that the FBI has a high chance of countering terrorism?
As of 2014, 682 million iOS/Mac OS installed-base devices were in use. Out of the 7.125
billion people of this world, not even 10% uses an iPhone. The chance of a terrorist owning an
iPhone is dismally low. Therefore, even if Apple were to create software that unlocked the said
device, there is no guarantee that this would prevent terrorism. However, what is certain is that
the FBI will now have access to your personal information. Simply put, the FBI dudes will have
your nudes.
Respectable members of the jury, there are 3 critical factors to take into account. 1) The
new software that the FBI is asking Apple to create would greatly violate Americans privacy. 2)
Code is speech, and the government must not be able to set a legal precedent that would allow
for it to violate 1st Amendment rights. 3) The new software program would lead to a slippery
slope of government breaches of Americans rights by asking additional companies to create
backdoors for their products. In short, these 3 factors can be encompassed by the phrase, a recipe
for disaster. My fellow American citizens, I encourage you to reject the creation of the software
the FBI is requesting Apple to make. Dont approve of a recipe for disaster.